More on Parker & Hughes
Xrlq noted the comparisons here. Now, GLN wants some info. He notes:
Parker v. District of Columbia challenged D.C. law based upon its effective prohibition of ownership. The short story is that you had to register your handguns sometime in 1976 or 1977. After that date you could not legally register any handgun, so no new handguns were legal.
Additionally, young people were prohibited from ownership as transfers are not allowed. Legal registrations required you to be 21, so all registered handguns in D.C. are now owned by those over 50.
This implementation of a firearm ban most resembles the Hughes Amendment to FOPA 86. Since May 19, 1986, no new full auto firearms have been added to the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFA 34 database).
Any law that imposes registration on firearms and then a subsequent law prevents adding to that registry is a target.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:45 am
As much as I would like to see Hughes gone, the parallels aren’t as close as you are trying to make them seem.
The D.C. registration scheme banned guns AND registration whereas Hughes just bans guns.
In other words, in DC you can’t transfer a registered handgun. If you didn’t own it and register it prior to 1976, you can’t own one. Hughes does ban the new registration of guns made after 1986, but it does not ban transfer. You can still buy a pre-ban gun and transfer the registration between owners.
Hughes was, in fact, a pretty simple amendment offered at the last minute on a voice vote. And let us not forget that the Hughes Amendment did not even appear to pass the voice vote but Charlie Rangel who was presiding over the hearing declared it approved.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:49 am
actually, hughes merely prohibits the governing agency from approving and tax collecting for MGs.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
[…] up on blogs a bit at a Panera in Oklahoma City, SayUncle shows us an article that makes some parallels between Parker and The Hughes Amendment. We have to be careful not to jump the gun too quickly. Parker is a great foundation, but a […]
March 17th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Ravenwood, I think you’re interpreting the decision too narrowly. Do you really think the Parker court would have ruled the other way if DC’s ordinance were amended to allow transfers of pre-1976 handguns (or, for that matter, if it allowed pre-1976 handguns to be kept loaded in the home, carried from room to room, etc.)?